South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 656

| Noteup | LawCite

Griffioen v Griffioen and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2025/039891) [2025] ZAGPPHC 656 (24 June 2025)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

{GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

 

CASE NO: 2025/039891


(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: YES

DATE: 24 June 2025

SIGNATURE:

 

In the matter between:

 

ANITA GRIFFIOEN                                                                   Applicant/Appellant

 

and

 

JOHANNES GRIFFIOEN                                                          1st Respondent

 

HEINRICH OLIVIER                                                                  2nd Respondent

 

ALAN JORDAAN N.O.                                                             3rd Respondent

 

OTTO KRAUSE ATTORNEYS                                                  4th Respondent


JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

 

(The matter was heard in open court on 1 April 2025 in the Urgent Court. The application was dismissed for lack of urgency and lack of locus standi. Written reasons for the extempore judgment were handed down on 23 April 2025. The application for leave to appeal was heard in open court on 13 June 2025 and judgment is handed down by uploading thereof onto the electronic file of the matter on Caselines. The date of uploading onto Caselines is deemed to be the date of the judgment).

 

BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J:

 

[1]        Having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings and heads of arguments uploaded onto Caselines, and considering the provisions of Section 17(1) (a) (i) & (ii) of the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success that another court would come to another decision; of that there are some other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.

 

[2]        There is nothing further to add to the extempore judgment and the written reasons furnished.

 

[3]        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, costs to be on Scale Bas contained in Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

 

 

HOLLAND-MUTER J

Judge of the Pretoria High Court

24 June 202

 


Counsel for the Applicant:

Adv C Barreiro

 

Counsel for Second Respondent:

Adv W C Carstens

 

Counsel for Fourth Respondent

Adv C B Garvey